Arcutiys's page

hot misrepresentations

Right. You've refused to read my posts time and time again, so I'm done with you and going to bed. But for the record:

Well, don't forget the fact that there's a mental type ping, or sensation when making a save, so magic always has some kind of "spidy sense" perhaps that's it, everyone can "feel" it, bu it takes training (ranks of spellcraft) to have any idea what these sensations really mean.

It specifically says "Clearly see the spell as it is being cast", so there's no reason to think that. It'd be okay if the rules worked the way you envision them, but the point of my OP still stands.

I read your posts and it doesn't really change the point at all. You made assumptions about how certain metamagic feats work and while it may make some sense, they're assumptions that are not supported by the rules and never have been supported by the rules. Hardly makes it a 'betrayal' for a developer to point out that that thing that isn't in the rulebook... isn't in the rulebook.

Eighth verse, same as the first

I didn't assume anything about the metamagic feats. Please. Read. My. Posts.

Clearly. See.

Also your timeline is a bit off. This post by Jason Bulmahn predates Paths of Prestige by two years and says more or less the same thing as the FAQ.

Oooo! A post on the internet! Wow! big stuff, I'm surprised! That's the real big guns here. A post made on the messageboards that was directly contradicted two years later in a actual rulebook.

Especially when it ADMITS that the rules are completely silent on this matter.

The only thing he says that supports your view of the rules is him saying "I support your view of the rules" and pointing out that none of the ACTUAL rules support it.

But no, those were the big guns you had there.

very new statement

Seventh verse, same as the first

but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast

means my spell is completely unidentifiable and I don't provoke AoOs"

Please read my posts before assuming what they say.

Before I start I have to say that there seems to be something wrong with the Reply function. Because of that I've chosen to omit the parts you (Arcutiys) have quoted from me. I might also accidentally have skipped something. If so, please do call me on it and I'll rectify it asap.

You've done fine, as far as I can tell

True, you did say that. Perhaps I should've been more clear. I think you're overreacting and slightly too paranoid about this because I think most of us just don't ask that question to begin with, its 'just' you. We assume honest mistakes and leave it at that.

Honestly, after all they've done, I think it's more than reasonable to ask the question even if the probable answer is 'no'. But I understand your point a bit better now

This is a fair point and as such not something I'll debate you on. What I do want to say is that your investments do not have to be a complete waste if you so choose. You can still play and enjoy the game your way.

Perhaps I should have been more clear as well. I'm not giving up pathfinder as a whole, it still has systems I like piecing together in a bit of a homebrew way. But I won't be buying more, and I feel like I've been cheated out of my characters one too many times in PFS. Now I can't play my way in PFS without constantly fearing that my characters will be retconned into nonexistance because of mistakes that THEY made publishing. Pathfinder as a whole is not a total waste, but all the time I placed in PFS seems to haunt me more and more as the seasons go on.

Complete aside, Oberoni? What's that?

Oberoni was a poster on a real old D&D forum. Maybe it's a carryover I still have and didn't realize isn't in swing anymore, but he had a good quote people used a lot about how rule 0 isn't an excuse for rules 1-through-infinity being broken in the first place. Was referred to as "The Oberoni Fallacy" for a while, but that might not have ever took place on Pathfinder boards

Really, we're not blind or stupid. We get pissed off too over the mistakes that get made, hamfisted errata, odd designdecisions and so on. We're vocal about it, too. Insofar, we're the same. The difference seems to be we're willing to accept and forgive it and you don't. Thats fine, I even understand, I just feel you're decision to do so is based on relatively insignificant things and I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. True, all of those insignificant things have added up to form the conclusion that Paizo's doing a bad job. I just don't think they are. By and large they've created a great game I truly enjoy. I know you must've enjoyed it too at some point and I'd hate for you to throw it away.

To me, it isn't relatively insignificant. I mean, adding an entire new component to spells without telling anybody, and then telling me that the only way to mask them is to buy a new book...that's just a complete betrayal. Sure, I agree that hiding spells should be more difficult for psychics than it is, but I don't think that action is permissible as a virtue. Taking people's money and then changing the rules and making them pay to get their old rules back is just something that on principle I can't support.

As for your second point, I've failed to see that option! Sorry! I believe your complaints are valid and think you're doing the right thing by voicing them. For what its worth I'm truly sorry I'm undermining your efforts here as I would be very happy if things were to improve too. Maybe I'm not enough of a critical consumer and maybe Paizo just skates by because of that and others like me, and we collectively facilitate that behavior, but as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm sorry, I'm really not going to change and don't think many others will either.

You're not undermining my efforts at all, just disagreeing. You've been quite reasonable and cordial throughout the whole thing. I just have higher standards. Not to make you sound like you're not a capable consumer or anything, as you said, as long as the good outweighs the bad then I can't blame anyone for taking it. If you're having fun, then more power to you. The point of these games is to have fun after all, and you don't have to spend time arguing with me about it. I just wanted to voice my complaints.

It's just frustrating, and to me, really insulting to be told "Yes, we made a mistake, and yes, we're not handling it well. Buuuut...whatever man. Buy the new book. You'll have some fun with it, so everything's good." That kind of stuff compromises my principles and--

Oh s%!!.

I just realized I'm the paladin. Well...

You, notably, ignored the part where Still Spell and Silent Spell say nothing about hiding your spellcasting. As in, literally nothing. The benefits you gain are that you can cast them without somatic and verbal components, respectively. That's it. You can cast a Still spell in a grapple without needing to make a concentration check, or can cast a Silent spell in an area of Silence or when you're gagged. But that's all the feats do for you.

Sweet jumping junipers, Big Rig, how many times must I say it?

but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast

The still and silenced spells do not HAVE to say they hide it, because the spellcraft skill says you HAVE to see it, and while it's still and silenced you see nothing! Hell, rules as written, you should be immune to spellcraft from simply a still spell, since it says you have to SEE the spell being cast. Obviously that's silly, and I agree. But you're just grasping at so many straws that it's crazy and I just have to point that out. I gotta pull all the stops, man.

Ignoring your quips about me apparently not reading your posts....

Holy hell. You actually admit you're just ignoring me whenever you can't think of a comeback.

As to the prestige class ability? I understand you're talking about Dawnflower Dissident, but could you explain how it says that the "laser show effect" never existed?

Because that's what you're saying it does.

It specifically tells you that if a spell has a visible effect, it becomes more difficult to cast it secretively, and that if the visible effect manifests clearly from the caster, then you can not conceal it.

Or are you agreeing with me even more than I am by saying the Pathfinder Devs put a completely redundant skill in the prestige class that can not work because all spells have always had laser lightshows? Because I don't think they're that bad at their jobs.

Perhaps it is the magic mumbo-jumbo. Whatever it is, it exists.

Incredible! You trying your hardest, just ignored my arguments and said "Lol i dunno, it's mumbo jumbo that's not explained. But trust me, it's there!"

Congratulations! You have completed your task and you may leave now. After all, your posts are "past their usefulness" as you so put it.

You're upset about a decision for a question that wasn't decisively answered, and that evidently is enough to make you stop buying their products

Please read my posts before assuming my motivations.

Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.

By the way, one last thing you got wrong

And for you to definitively say that this "laser show effect" (or whatever magical shenanigans you want to say happens during casting) never existed is wrong.

There's literally a prestige class that says this is wrong. Sorry.

Sure, I'll answer it.

There. Spellcraft says you can identify a spell if you can clearly see it being cast. Neither Silent Spell nor Still Spell say anything about stopping anyone with ranks in Spellcraft from identifying the spell. Question answered.

If you can clearly see it being cast.

If you can clearly see it being cast

To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast

a spell.

Silent Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast your spells without making any sound.

Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.

Eschew Materials
You can cast many spells without needing to utilize minor material components.

(list of all spells without focus components)

Mm. Mm. Sorry, no can do. You can't "clearly see" jack diddly. Unless you're telling me that you can actually read minds by using spellcraft, in which case, no. You still aren't clearly seeing anything.

Now, my turn to ask you to answer a question.

What, in Still Spell, Silent Spell, Spellcraft, the Magic chapter, or the entire Core Rulebook says you can hide any of your spells from being identified?

but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast

I believe the FAQ in question agreed that it wasn't outright stated - but it also noted the rules work on the assumption that spells are identifiable.

It also works under the assumption that you can see and hear someone casting. Which you can't, by definition of silent and still spell. Did you not understand what I said the first time?

if. IF you see the spell cast.

Frankly, there is no reason to think otherwise.

That's not how Occam's razor works. You don't just assume random bullcrap about laser lightshows to justify the rulebook. The reason to think otherwise is because it's not stated. If the rulebook does not tell you that you have glowy magic auras everyone can see around you at all times, then there is definite reason to not assume that; the book should tell you if it expects you to know this.

Also, components are not the totality of what casting a spell entails. If you're casting a Silent, Stilled spell, you're still casting. It's the "being cast" part that's important, which basically means having line of sight to the caster. If a spell is being cast, then it's being cast whether it has components or not, since it is possible to cast without components. That's why they're irrelevant for knowing that someone is casting.

Do you also assume someone who's invisible but holding a holy symbol entitles the cleric to make a knowledge religion roll because it extends psychic disturbance through the leylines?

Do you also assume that a druid that's currently looking the other way is entitled to a knowledge nature roll to identify a tree twenty feet away from him because the tree whistles through the wind?

Why do you then assume that magic explodes in a lightshow so that people can identify invisible, mute, tasteless, scentless, untouchable supernatural occurrence that produces no effect other than the caster memorizing a page?

Please, answer that question if you can. Other than "the FAQ says" or "spellcraft doesn't say that it DOESN'T"

Half a post of condescension

Please read my posts before assuming what they're about.

Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.

I would think all spells can be identified, because this is what the rules say. The rules for Spellcraft are quite clear on this - if you can see the spell being cast

If

Everything you just said solves nothing, because of the word if that you rightfully placed there. If you use several metamagic feats, to the point where as far as the rules say, literally nothing about you changes except for the expenditure of a standard action and, say, Memorize Page so that you remember what you just looked at, then it's a extremely big IF.

But no, by all means, everyone always has a laser lightshow going on around them whenever they do anything remotely magical or supernatural. Even though that's never once even HINTED at in the books.

This is my problem! These rules are a complete mess. It's like no one even tried when they were writing them. And in fact, I can state with utmost authority that they never tried, because it's still not in the books after they acknowledged this is a unclear problem, and some books still dispute the fact that they exist in the first place. And I PAID for it.

You seem to mainly be angry about spells having a visible component

Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.

I'm sorry?

I think its because spell like abilities make zero sense if something doesnt happen. Its very strange that you can spellcraft and aoo these mentally activated silent abilities lol

Similarly, it's very strange that you can use spellcraft or AoO on a spell that has absolutely no signs of having just been cast. Now let's think about this really, REALLY hard.

If you read these rules, would you think "Well, obviously spellcraft wouldn't work on something that has no tells, and it's arguable if AoO would still recognize it because the person would still have to concentrate to spend the standard action on the spell, or if it wouldn't recognize it due to the caster spending so many metamagic feats on it as to make the effect negligible"

Or would you think "Well, obviously all spells have glowy runes floating over the caster's head, which everyone knows is a universal sign of a free AoO, even though this is never once mentioned in the books"

Occam's Razor is desperately banging against the top of the toolbox here.

Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.

Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be. Its just not a very good businessmodel for a luxury product, you see. Big pharma and such get away with it, of sorts, because their products are essential to their customers. Paizo gets our money because they exploit (not in a bad way necessarily!) our hunger for more content, not revised content.

Now to be fair, I did say that I don't actively believe they're doing this either. I do think they're incompetent rather than intentionally doing this. I just pointed out how much of a problem your company has if the question "Are they actively being evil or are they just too incompetent to release books correctly?" has to be asked as often as it does.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be very good for most of us on these boards to buy it anyway, funds permitting!

You said it

It doesn't apply in PFS but for homegames you can always rely on rule 0. Change the rule if you don't like it, or scrap it alltogether. I'd urge you to do that instead of quitting alltogether.

Just because you can rule 0 something doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. Oberoni and such. Besides, this is still a large problem in PFS, which is a service I ostensibly paid for by getting the books and the character folios, and just as importantly invested a lot of time in personally running it.

Finally, and I hate to have to state this, but, I don't think you'll find much common ground here. Sure, everyone wants things to be done better, with more of an eye towards quality and detail, better content etc. but I don't think you'll convince anyone to stop buying books based on your argument. You're much more likely to sway minds and find sympathizers on more general boards (rpg.net, for instance) or through product reviews on, say, amazon. We're likely too invested in our love for the product, you see. Otherwise I wouldn't know why we're all here!

Again, you said it. There's something admirable about straight up admitting that people here are too sunk into fanboyism to be swayed.

Though convincing people not to buy Paizo products wasn't my only goal. I also wanted to voice my disdain in a place where the company members who run the whole thing were more likely to see it. On the very off chance that they would actually change their...behavior.

I think in the case of the Dawnflower Dissident, "observable effect refers to the effect of the spell, i.e the blast of fire when you cast fireball; as opposed to a spell like charm person which only effect the mind of the target.

Well, it also increases the difficulty if, quote, "Spell has a visible, audible, or otherwise observable effect."

I think both of those together VERY clearly state that all spells weren't supposed to have laser lightshows inherently, as the FAQ is desperately trying to convince us now.

So I stopped playing Pathfinder Society quite a while ago after quite a few revisions. But one stuck with me in particular; the fact that even a still, silent, material-less, focus-less spell is apparent because of some visible components. Even psychic spells. Whether or not that's reasonable, and to an extent I agree with it, is not the point.

This makes me unhappy for several reasons. One of which being how this is, to my knowledge, never once referenced in the actual rulebook. Second being that this is on purpose, as the book has been out for a long time and they just haven't addressed it.

To me, springing this out of a FAQ after already having bought the books, and then just telling me "Buy more books so you can actually hide spellcasting" is absurd and a complete betrayal of customer trust. It's why I won't buy a Pathfinder product again, along with the generally unacceptable number of books they put out without actually proofreading (Really? You forgot to put the wood kineticist's basic utility talent in the book? REALLY?)

But the final nail in the coffin was when I was looking through Paths Of Prestige after hearing the devs say that this was always part of the rules. See, there's this little class called Dawnflower Dissident, or Dissident of Dawn if you're on the D20pfsrd.

It gets an ability to hide spellcasting, and notes specifically that this ability automatically fails if "[The] spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster", as opposed to...Every other spell in the game. This looks like they actually don't know what their own rules are. Amazing.

Now it's an assumption, but it's almost as if they just decided to change the rules surreptitiously a little after releasing psychic spellcasters in the FAQ but not in the books so that people who showed up for PFS with psychic casters get told that "Actually, this power that you think you have doesn't work anymore because of the FAQ, you'll have to buy more books." or you can't play your character that the book promised you.

Sure, that might not be true. In fact, I think it probably was just a disconnect, a difference between the intent of rules between different authors. It's difficult to get everyone involved to understand the rules the same way. It's better to assume incompetence than malice when people wrong you, I think.

But that's that, isn't it? Whenever Paizo does something, I'm forced to question whether the retconning of rules, typos, lack of BASIC CLASS FEATURES, or things of that nature, was from incompetence or specifically to gauge out more money for future books. This is why I don't recommend Paizo products to anyone anymore. Because they either have no idea what they're doing and have created a mess and expect us to pay to fix what they promised us in the first place, or they are actively ruining their products as time goes on with the intent of getting us to pay more. Every time I have to sit down and debate that question, it's a revelation as to how poorly paizo products are managed.

Arcane, so my character actually has powers of his own and isn't just a arbitrarily constricted conduit for some fickle god. Seriously. Why wouldn't you just make your clerics/oracles level 20 from the start? I mean, if you can afford to have level 20 followers in the first place, just magically give them the experience and power they need instantly.

Although if psychic is allowed, definitely psychic because why wouldn't you love psychic?

Arcutiys wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

I imagine it's because a lot of the inspiration for the class came from Avatar's water benders, of which not a single one can breath water.

I'm pretty sure the kineticists aren't benders. Usually earthbenders don't just shoot rocks from their flesh.

Benders are 100% part of the inspiration for the class; not all of it, but part of it.

I didn't say they weren't. Why did you think I did? I just said that his assertion made no sense on a design or logical level.

I imagine it's because a lot of the inspiration for the class came from Avatar's water benders, of which not a single one can breath water.

I'm pretty sure the kineticists aren't benders. Usually earthbenders don't just shoot rocks from their flesh.

Elves are dumb, man.

That sounds strange, but really, that's the only justification I can think of. Elves and dwarves and all that are just incredibly dumb. The "Learning taking a long time because they don't focus on one thing" explanation falls apart when you have a character with a backstory specifically stating they spend all their time doing the one thing. For some unknown reason, long lived races are just incredibly dumber than short lived races, and it averages out over time. Much like how human babies are incredibly dumber than cats and it averages out over time (until the human becomes smarter and overcomes the cat, but that doesn't happen with humans and long lived races)

Pest control and self defence using negative energy is still killing things..

Fire cooks food

no, dude. cmon.

Fire cooks food, provides warmth, and light and has generally been a part of every home for the previous 4,000 years.

How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.

The positive energy plane represents creation and life, the negative energy plane represents destruction and death. These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.

These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.

What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things

It's an interesting dichotomy. I think that ultimately a designer in that situation, when possible to do so beforehand (sometimes it's impossible because you miss a loophole), should pretty much always choose the latter, since in groups that don't try to work collaboratively on balance (like my home group does; work collaboratively that is) but instead have one GM as the main person looking at balance, it's socially far easier to get a group to agree to loosening a restriction than it is to get them to agree to fixing a loophole or exploit they wanted to exploit, and even if you fail to reach an agreement (or, indeed, don't notice the issue beforehand until or unless it starts affecting play) you fail gently with a restriction but loudly with a loophole.

I can definitely see the thought process on that, now that you laid it out for me. While I sort of agree, I think it went a little too far in that direction, in a way that it kind of cut in with the flavor more than I'm comfortable with. I dunno, but I think it's reasonable to put it on the GM to stop something too silly, like finding some exploit to stack two dozen kinetic covers on top of eachother so you can climb up something. I didn't see a lot of the restrictions as necessary as the author erred the side of

The class is about manipulating water. NOT BREATHING WATER! The class successfully manipulates water. Therefore the class is successfully doing the thing it's all about. Breathing water is not what the class is all about.

But for you, the real injustice should be Fire and Wood, neither get the ability to breath in their elements.

Breathing water and going underwater is not the focus of the class.

So interacting with bodies of water is not the focus of the class literally named "water"

ok.

Hydrokineticists don't even actually get hurt by water just for being submerged in it and demanding to be able to breathe the stuff sooner than a pyro ever could with fire/smoke (currently never).

"But this other thing isn't the same, so you can't want to fix this!"

Are you serious? Is this your "gotcha!" moment? Sure. Giving fire kineticists the ability to not choke on their own flames would be good. Make it a part of fire sculpting or something.

Arcutiys wrote:

How the heck does it make sense that the ONE GUY who wants to be THE GUY when it comes to water, how does it make sense that he can't friggin go in the water without drowning?!

Because 95% of campaigns don't go in the water. The Water Guy can go into the water for short periods of time by holding his breath, until he gets the water breathing thing. For the majority of games, that's all he needs. The Water Guy does things with water, and at higher levels can do things in water. He doesn't need to be in the water from 1st level except in very specific games.

So your explanation as to why the water guy can't go in the water, is because campaigns don't go in the water.

Hey, barbarian, I'm going to arbitrarily take your rage power away until level 10 because I don't have anyone using the antagonize feat on you. So you don't have a reason to rage.

Hey, paladin, I'm taking away your ability to smite until level 10 because, really, do you NEED it? You can just swing your sword at him, right? What do you mean, the entire paladin class is based off of being a holy warrior? Yeah. I guess. But you don't need it, because 95% of the game is going to be easy enough for you to just be a gimped fighter.

Just because they don't friggin NEED to doesn't mean you can take away the ONE THING their class is about!

I think it makes far more sense for air to get the early breathing ability personally.

That said water gets it a little on the late side compared to the 5th-6th level of generic casters so if it were available a little earlier it wouldn't be a big deal.

Thematically though, I think air getting it first makes a ton of sense.

EDIT: I'd actually ok with water NEVER getting to breathe water as a power; manipulating water kinetically doesn't really result in 'you can breathe this' as a power, to me.

How the heck does it make sense that the ONE GUY who wants to be THE GUY when it comes to water, how does it make sense that he can't friggin go in the water without drowning?!

I get it. The air guy does air. Aerokineticists have a good thematic reason to breathe. But COME ON, throw the water guy a bone. It's all he has. It's the ONE job he has!

It's the opportunity cost. Getting the breath water ability stops you from getting anything else that level. So instead of getting an ability that works like all the time you have one that works sometimes to rarely.

That's why I said "the ability to reasonably breathe water." Milo's previously mentioned fix would work well for it.

But if you make water so incredibly especially good underwater then you have the same problem that all the other water themed archetypes and abilities have (read: they're complete and utter garbage in 99% of campaigns).

I genuinely haven't been in a single campaign where there's been a lack of water, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Heck, in pathfinder society one-offs there's mostly at least some form of water, or need of water.

Besides, how would giving water kineticsts the ability to reasonably breathe water make this problem worse? It would just let them do their job.

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Aeros can survive underwater sooner than Hydros.

Ignoring the logistics of how they do it, just thematically, do you think that's okay?

Yes. Air has two real tricks: being able to fly, and being able to create air. Water has many more useful utility talents to control water on land and a far superior defense talent.

Thematically, should water have a low level water breathing utility talent? Probably. But comparing the entire talents of Air vs water, I don't have a problem with air being able to survive underwater earlier than water. They can do car less while down there than a hydro can.

Then Air should be able to do more things, and water should be able to do things in WATER

Saying "But it would make it more unbalanced" isn't really any kind of solution. "It's broke, and fixing it in one way would make it more broken in other ways" doesn't really excuse the fact that it's still broken.

And should have been in the book. You're channeling your element through your body, so why can't you breathe in water as a water kinitecist???

Makes. Zero. Sense.

PLEASE

HE IS THE WATER MAN

PLEASE JUST LET HIM DO THE WATER IT'S ALL HE WANTS

It's just water! Just let the guy who picked the class based around water be able to go in the water without dying! It makes zero sense that the class based ENTIRELY around water and NOTHING else, the waterguy, can't do water until level 10, where as the guy based around jumping around can do it in immediately, even though he can't use most of his powers in the water!

The flavour, mechanics, and intent are supposed to work TOGETHER, not smash their skulls together.

Arcutiys wrote:

Why must kinetic cover crumble at the slightest touch? Is boosting yourself up 5 feet really overpowered enough to make a mound of rocks with up to 40 hit points unable to support more than 5 pounds of weight?

Wait.... Why are you using kinetic cover to boost yourself up higher?

I'm not. I just don't see the point in not letting you. It's these little things in Pathfinder that give it the RULESRULESRULESNOFUN reputation.

I can get that they're trying to stop exploits, which were pretty big in ye olden dais. But it's just constraining well intentioned players and completely ruining any immersion, much less missing the point of why people want a kineticist. If you have a player who's exploiting the system in any way they can to one-up the GM/party, the rules aren't the problem.

Why must you hurt me in this way?

Why does air kineticist breathe underwater for one wild talent 9 levels before hydrokineticist can with two?

Why must you be level 4 and take a whole wild talent to do nonlethal damage as a phytokineticist?

For that matter, why must you forget to even put basic phytokinesis in the book?

Why must phytokineticist spend 3 burn at level 8 to maybe sicken someone for 1 round?

Why must basic geokinesis be so incredibly weak? Please. 100 pounds at level 20. Please, man. It's rocks. The fighter with 18 strength can lift up to 600 pounds of anything at first level.

Why must the ability to jump high and the ability to survive high falls be separate?

Why must kinetic cover crumble at the slightest touch? Is boosting yourself up 5 feet really overpowered enough to make a mound of rocks with up to 40 hit points unable to support more than 5 pounds of weight?

Why must tremorsense greater not work on manufactured underground facilities made of stone? Earth kineticist is the rock man. he does rocks. please, let him do rocks. it's all he can do.

I want to love you so much, Kineticist. Please let me love you like you deserve

Basic chaokenesis does exactly what is says. It protects you from bright light.

Do you take penalties from bright light? If no, then it does nothing. If yes, it prevents you from taking those penalties.
That's it.

So it automatically cancels out all light? Does it make it easier to use stealth? Are you considered in the dark or in normal light? And does that apply concealment? At what point does it interact with light spells, if ever? Does this make vampires immune to sunlight? Does it protect against hot environments since the sun is no longer shining on you, or is it just a completely flavourless "IF BAD THING SAY YOU GET -2 PERCEPTION FROM SUN DONT MAKE THE BAD NUMBER" and doesn't do any of the above things?

It's unclear as all hell and it kind of matters to know what the basic -kinesises ACTUALLY do, and need clarification as to how phytokinesis and chaokinesis interact with the universal powers, as opposed to having to hunt down the cantrip things are based on that weren't even published, isn't necessarily copying, and isn't explained in the forums, let alone explained in the book I BOUGHT.

The only thing "missing" is basic phytokinesis. If you are looking for the Chaokineticist to get more things, then you will need to be patient.

I consider the basic chaokinetic power to be functionally missing, considering it doesn't clarify what the heck the darkness actually does. So that's the two most basic things they had to do, both broken, first level. It's not great.

There's an answer for Phytokineticists early in the thread, Mark Seifter gave it. How we're going to make that answer easier to find and archive is an ongoing question, and I can't promise it'll be "soon," just that we're working on it.

And as for the strength of basic chaokinesis vs light?

"We're working on it, but I can't promise it will be soon." is kind of annoying to hear, since I bought a product that was fundamentally broken. I expect things I buy to work, or at least look like they were checked for huge errors like basic powers missing.

Will we be getting answers any time soon, at all?

Bodyguard, Halfling's helpful trait, Cavalier of the Dragon level 2, and Spiritualist/summoner/druid with bodyguard companion also.

It's not very optimized and it's difficult to position, but I just find it hilarious to give +10 AC bonuses to all my teammates and do it anyways

Perhaps I am not understanding the question regarding void's negative energy drain infusion, but it was said that the negative energy blast has no effect at all on undead, in case you missed it...

Yeah, but it's also said that fire blasts have no effect on fire elementals. Because fire. That's why draining infusion exists, to damage things you normally can't damage.

It also points out you can't use your negative energy to heal undead, and then later it gives you an ability to heal undead with it. So, yeah.

I tried searching but I didn't find it, but how "protective" vs light is chaokinesis? Does it just help vs light sensitivity/blindness? or does it also protect vampires and the like?

They didn't bother to explain a lot of things in this book.

I'd like to add my voice to the question of whether void's negative energy draining infusion can be used on undead. I'm also a little disappointed in the wood element, it seems really weak (Especially considering the basic phytokinesis isn't even in there, which is irking when I just paid for it.)

I'm kind of regretting buying this. It's more than a little broken.

mplindustries wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

I call shenanigans. In fact, I call Shanahanigans

So, you're going to bench the feat that gives +5 to Prayer and put in one that gives +2 to Prayer while claiming that's the one you wanted all along, that the other feat only got in there because it's friends with the GM, and that it's the reason your character is so crappy rather than the fact that your AC is under 10 and all your weapons have the broken condition?

This is why people shouldn't drink and post.

People shouldn't post at all. It's at least a minor infraction leading towards the chaotic neutral alignment to even talk on here.

A properly built synthasist is overpowered far more than this thread gives credit for.

First, it effectively makes you about a 60-point build if done right. Inheriting the physical stats while keeping your mental suggests just dumping Str/Dex, and only keeping enough Con to survive those brief "out of eidilon" encounters.

They have more HP than any barbarian, and if properly built can have saves that rival anything. This while having massive damage output, the best buffing spell list in the game, and an AC through the roof.

Well, a properly built ranger can mow down a dragon. All the classes are overpowered. That's the point, it's a fantasy game. The synthesist might look more overpowered, but looks can deceive. Action economy and all that

As to the above poster (which I won't quote for space), I pretty much agree. Of course, to the AC thing, many people complain about that with monks, too, who become pretty much unhittable if you build them right. There's lots of ways to get around that, like having intelligent mobs ignore the synthesist, or use debuffs on him, in this case if you're high enough a anti-magic field, but in the end, I think it's better just to ask your player not to cheese it up. Making characters for style over effectiveness is more fun anyways.

For instance, my Synthesist is convinced he is a god, so I picked various evolutions like unnatural aura, stuff that isn't optimal, but damn cool to see in action. Asking players to do the same goes a long way to making the synthesist a great addition to the party, as opposed to someone who is completely OP, the same way asking everyone ELSE not to ultra-optimize makes it a group where a monk or rogue can get their stab on without feeling useless.

Synthesist can be pretty...not super-overpowered, because other classes can be too, but they can be such a DIFFERENT target that it makes it difficult to plan for them. They have big disadvantages, but much like the monk or rogue, I can see how people refuse to make the rest of the game around them to make it work. I just kind of see that attitude as hard-headed.

Ffff, I started a new page. So much for "The above poster"

In most reasonable scenarios, illiterate and ignorant peasants would be terrified of a half-orc barbarian ... because the operative words in the phrase are "orc" and "barbarian."

So what's the point of pointing out that Synthesists would be seen as weird? Every friggin class and race looks like a murder hobo at best, religious zealots at worst, and weird fantastical/monster men at ugliest.

Marthkus wrote:

Why do people assume being a peasant makes them closed minded, hateful, bigots?

Just because something that looks like a monster freaks you out doesn't make you a "closed minded hateful bigot", when most things that look like monsters ARE monsters that consider villagers either great items for sport, or staples for the dinner menu. The average peasant lives in a world far far more dangerous than we do without the protections of a large town or city. I think they can be forgiven for assuming the worst.

Again: Half Orcs. Tell me how humanoid, fantastical Eidolons are viewed as monsters bent on killing them when Half Orc barbarians aren't.

Damiancrr wrote:

A Player in one of my current campaigns wants to go a synthesis summoner. I told him I would have to get back to him on it because I've heard alot of bad things about the archtype. But neither me nor him understand why the archtype is banned and what makes it so "over-powered". So I want to go to the forums first and ask if there are any concrete reasons why I should -not- let him play a synthesis summoner or things I should disallow if i am going to let him become one.

Thanks in Advance For All The Help! ^_^

I know munchkins that defend it but its clearly:

1 character with the HPs of 2
1 character with the stats of 2
1 character with the physical boons of one character and the spell casting of another.

A sugary free ac and save bonus for being gestalt.

With d.door thrown in at 6th as a bonus.

The best bonus of all:
Only 1 character that needs magic items (we know wealth levels and items can make/break characters exp. at high levels). No point having a buff animal companion when they turn on the party at the mention of a will save.
Worse is when all enemies target you because they KNOW killing you kills 2 characters - synthesists avoid such cause and effect issues that games cannot avoid but mere theorising and nanny games/infinite wealth games can.

If you think gestalt is too much, don't do it. If you are fine with gestalt do. I have seen a synthesist in a gestalt game- with its double HPs and effective double stats it out performed others who had 2 sets of class abilities and saves that often couldn't be used in sync!

I'd like to see it compared to a summoner/druid who gets 3 standard actions a turn. Or even a regular summoner who gets 2.

Action economy counts for a lot. A lot more than having a poopy natural weapon or acid orb.

I too am for institutionalized Eidolon Awareness week!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Look, it is pretty simple.

If you know there is going to be a Paladin in the group, understand that if you make a shady-ish character you are heading down conflict rod to one degree or another. If you have outwardly visible signs of "transgressions" expect it to get worst.

Sure, you can argue that someone shouldn't play a Paladin, the same way someone could argue that the Warlock doesn't have to projecting "BAD" either.

Look, it's pretty simple.

If you know there is going to be a warlock in the group, understand that if you make a prude of a character, you are heading down the conflict road to one degree or another.

^Your argument.

Or, you know, paladins don't have to be played lawful-stupid.

Higher education is negatively correlated with xenophobia.

I don't know if real life peasants were like that (hard to tell with a lack of time travel) but the typical Medieval Western Europe view of them is that yes they often were. Racism and xenophobia are a fact of life and it was worse back then. (See education, lack thereof.) Just not sure if it was the nobles, peasants, or both who felt that way.

Everyone was a jerk to everyone. Again, if you're singling out the summoner for that jerkish behavior, you are not being a good DM.

Hm. Well, my in-character justification for being a necromancer was "Summoners bring creatures from the beyond and enslave them, forcing them to fight, sometimes to the death. I make automatons with my own soul and use them to fight, no other creatures in the mix. I believe I am more good than a conjurer."

Perhaps you can use a similar argument to the Cleric and Paladin.

I find it amusing when a player says that it is another characters fault for playing a class (Paladin) that is required to be Paragon-Good when they make a character whose entire foundation is shady at best.

Nevermind everyone else in the group is on one page and you are not.

Yes, because if it looks stereotypically evil, then you are being the paragon of evil and the Paladin is the one being reasonable. It's not like, you know, characters can differ in any way from eachother.

Remember, if Tolkien didn't write it, and you're trying to play it, you're a douche bag.

Evilserran wrote:

I maxed my diplomacy,bluff and sensemotive specifically to try and curb the "bias" against me. Points in disguise as well, as clearly calling myself a "sorcerer" to not hide my casting ability but to give a different perspective to look at.

Wizards and sorcerers can do everything my character can do (except eldritch blast, but orb spells etc could look the same) John the farmer should see no difference, imo, but my group knows. I claim to have powers from the shadows (to group only), but again, have done nothing outright evil, even the foodstuffs, which some claimed were evil, were not the "towns" foodstuffs. They belonged to the specific merchant, and were a day after a fresh shipment came in from the other merchant. No starvation was going to happen.

Look it boils down to you made a character that skirts the outside of what the DM wanted for alignment and is in direct opposition of 2 of the four members of your party you've mentioned while the third member also doesn't sound thrilled to have him around either. You might think your justified 75% of your party disagrees. Find a compromise or start prepping a fallback. If you don't find a compromise of some sort best case scenario is they run the character out of the group, worst case scenario they get frustrated enough to run you off the table. If you refuse to see how what you've made is causing conflict and flat refuse to change then that character might not be redeemable for that party. Its a game to have fun, you're causing conflict and stress and obviously not enjoying it. Fix the problem. It costs you nothing to change or replace that character and I bet you DM would be willing to let you change or bring in a new character to cut the conflict off at the knees so you can get back to the story and stop bickering with each other.

No, it's the PALADIN'S fault! Why? Because he's evil! How do I know? He wears white armor. That could be RACIST, ergo, I SHALL DEMAND THAT HE STOP BEING A SLAVER OR ANDORAN WILL TRY AND KILL HIS PETS AND GET HIM THROWN IN JAIL BY BEING A INDIRECT SISSY.

He shouldn't have made a conflict! He decided wearing white armor was okay, but our campaign is only for good people. And if he looks evil, then he must be evil.

Lawful stupid is the best alignment!

Arcutiys wrote:

Sounds like you should kill the Cleric and Paladin in their sleep. It's not evil if they attacked you first! Just dishonorable. And that fits fine with chaotic neutral

I think he needs to have a discussion with his DM and, most likely, his fellow players. Call them on their use of metagaming as a passive aggressive, shoulder-shrugging seal of approval for their douchebaggery, but you know...do so diplomatically.

Discussywhatnow? Mmm. I don't knooow. Crossbows solve most my diplomatist problems just fine.